Friday, October 8, 2010
The Church's political advocacy, public perception, and SSM
This cartoon (from today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reflects the enormous problem facing the Church's effort to stop the inclusion of same-sex couples within civil law marriage. Increasingly, it seems, the public perception is that discrimination = discrimination = discrimination. Expressing the vilest sentiments about gays and lesbians is simply a difference in degree from excluding gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage. Part of this dynamic stems from our society's increasing embrace of individual liberty as an organizing principle, part of it, I'm sure, stems from a deliberate strategy by some SSM advocates to obfuscate potential distinctions between public policy stances affecting gays and lesbians, and part of it, in my view, stems from SSM opponents' failure to take the lead in advocating against social practices that we can all agree bring unjustifiable harm to gays and lesbians. Along with the DVD campaign, for example, Abp. Nienstedt could have publicly and prominently expressed his concern about the tragedy of recent suicides by gay teenagers, encouraged more vigilant efforts by school officials to police bullying, etc. Of course the Church has not been silent on the humanity of gays and lesbians, and relative silence should not ever be mistaken for approval, but in this climate, I think the Church needs to be speaking out early and often about affirming and defending the dignity of gays and lesbians if the distinction between anti-SSM and anti-gay is going to have any long-term traction.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/10/the-churchs-political-advocacy-public-perception-and-ssm.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
"I think the Church needs to be speaking out early and often about affirming and defending the dignity of gays and lesbians if the distinction between anti-SSM and anti-gay is going to have any long-term traction."
Rob,
As I have argued before, the Church defends the dignity of every human person from conception to death. This includes murderers, rapists, pedophiles, abortionists, and gays and lesbians. The Church in no way seeks to confer any more dignity on gays and lesbians than it does on murderers and rapists. The Church does not call for tolerance and acceptance of gays and lesbians who actually engage in homosexual behavior. It does not call for them to be bullied or executed, but then it does not call for abortionists or pedophiles to be bullied or executed.
Homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered," and homosexual acts are acts of "grave depravity." It is the position of the Church that even if the basic rights of homosexuals are being denied, the solution is for homosexuals to hide their orientation. "Such initiatives [i.e, legislation to safeguard the rights of homosexuals], even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society." By virtue of having a homosexual orientation alone, no matter how exemplary the person's behavior, he or she has fewer rights than non-homosexuals. Those who actually engage in homosexual behavior ("to which no one has any conceivable right") may be considered a danger to public welfare and dealt with accordingly.
The Church basically calls for some degree of compassion for those with a homosexual orientation who remain celibate and do not publicly identify themselves. But it does not call for any more tolerance or compassion for, say, same-sex married couples than it does for any other individuals who engage in acts of "grave depravity." To quote:
**********
Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
**********